On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Chris Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Christopher Lenz
> wrote:
>> On 25.07.2009, at 21:58, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Chris Anderson
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Benoit Chesneau>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/7/25 Lynton Grice :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just tried that and it still gives an error. Any other idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that the lib not mochijson wait do something.
>>>>>
>>>>> - benoît
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In another thread we narrowed it down to patches on our version of
>>>> mochijson2. This hard-to-track error makes me think we should just
>>>> rename our version of the library.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>> Out of curiosity, after the discussion on changing the format, why
>>> didn't mochiweb ever take that patch upstream?
>>
>> I don't think we ever submitted a patch.
>>
>
> Cross-posting to dev@ again.
>
> I believe I may have had an informal conversation with Bob at the time
> our new JSON usage was fresh, and came away thinking he wasn't
> interested. Of course this was before we brought it up on the Erlang
> list and came to consensus. Also, I might not be remembering this
> correctly - which underscores the importance of having discussions on
> archived mailing lists.
>
> Looking at the diff between our mochijson2 and the upstream version,
> there are a few differences:
>
> Aside from the {struct, proplist()} thing, the biggest is our handling
> of numbers, which is simpler than theirs but without falling over to
> floating-point notation for large integers. I introduced this change
> because the upstream float-conversion was causing us to fail to
> round-trip very large numbers that we'd been able to handle before.
>
> Mochijson has also added the ability to output JSON as utf8 instead of
> backslash-encoded. This seems like a change we'll certainly want to
> absorb. There are also some changes around UTF-16 handling which I'd
> have to look at more closely to understand.
>
> I think we should definitely start a discussion with the Mochiweb team
> about either merging our renaming our library. I'd also suggest that
> we let integrating their new patches wait for the 0.11 branch so we
> don't introduce subtle regressions with little time for testing before
> 0.10.
>
> Chris
I submitted a patch to Mochiweb for the UTF-16 surrogate pair decoding
problem. I don't think there are any other UTF-16 differences.
I agree that we don't need to tackle this integration for 0.10.
Adam